Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

57. Learned counsel for defendant further relied on the citation reported in (1968) 3 SCR 158 in "Moti Lal Banker(dead) by his LR v/s Maharaj Kumar Mahmood Hasan Khan" wherein, their Lordships held as under:-

"2. It is open to the parties to enter into a compromise with reference to their rights and obligations under a decree. There is nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure which prevents the parties from entering into such a compromise. If the compromise amounts to an adjustment of the decree, it must be recorded under Order 21, Rule 2 and if not so recorded, it cannot be recognized by any court executing the decree. The compromise of May 29, 1954 was so recorded within the prescribed period of limitation. The compromise was a fair bargain to postpone the execution of the decree on payment of reasonable interest. The terms of the compromise related to the execution of the decree. The executing Court has power to determine all questions arising between the parties to the suit relating to the execution of the decree and to give appropriate relief on such determination. Exclusive power to determine such questions is given to the executing Court by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The executing Court can determine all questions relating to the agreement postponing the execution of the decree and the incidental term as to the payment of the higher rate of interest. The agreement to pay the higher interest is enforceable in execution of the decree, See Oudh Commercial Bank Ltd., v. Thakurain Bind Basni Kuer. On the question whether the agreement to pay interest at a rate higher than the rate provided in the decree can be enforced in execution proceedings there was a conflict of judicial opinion. The Privy Council decision settled the law on this point. There was also earlier decisions which held that execution could have issue both for the sum decreed and for the interest promised, see Sreeshteedhur Shaha v. Woomeshnath Roy and Lakshmana v. Sukiya Bai.

59. The learned counsel for the defendant also relied on the decision reported in 2000 SC 2757 in Lakshmi Narayanan Vs. S.S.Pandian which reads as;

"Tenancy - eviction - section 47 and Order 21 Rule 2 of CPC, 1908 - whether compromise entered into between parties executing new lease deed extinguishes previously grated decree for eviction - effect of compromise on executability of decree depends upon intention of parties - intention being mixed question of fact ad law is to be determined by executing court under section 47 on interpretation of decree and compromise in light of fact and circumstances